As part of a one-year trial run, the Department of Justice has granted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives the power to to seize and administratively forfeit property allegedly involved in controlled substance offenses, which is almost tantamount to saying that on the mere suspicion that one is doing something illegal, the ATF can snatch ones firearms and property.

The Washington Times, among other publications, have explained the implications of this new DoJ decree:

Its a dangerous extension of the civil-forfeiture doctrine, a surreal legal fiction in which the seized property  not a person  is put on trial. This allows prosecutors to dispense with pesky constitutional rights, which conveniently dont apply to inanimate objects. In this looking-glass world, the owner is effectively guilty until proved innocent and has the burden of proving otherwise. Anyone falsely accused will never see his property again unless he succeeds in an expensive uphill legal battle.

Such seizures are common in drug cases, which sometimes can ensnare people who have done nothing wrong. James Lieto found out about civil forfeiture the hard way when the FBI seized $392,000 from his business because the money was being carried by an armored-car firm he had hired that had fallen under a federal investigation. As the Wall Street Journal reported, Mr. Lieto was never accused of any crime, yet he spent thousands in legal fees to get his money back.

Until this expansion of power was granted, the ATF had to refer such matters to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which would initiate, process and conclude all necessary forfeiture actions for the controlled-substance-related property.

So, in other words, now we have at least two federal agencies that can, on a regular basis, seemingly supplant due process and the fourth amendment to take ones property.

With respect to ones money, the burden of proof required is even more tenuously worded. That is, as The Firearm Blog, and The Truth About Guns reported, the ATF doesnt even need to find drugs; rather it can snatch ones cash on theories that the currency was furnished, or intended to be furnished, in exchange for a controlled substance.

Obviously, there are a lot of questions. Among them, how can the government do this without Congressional approval or oversight? Well, Executive Order:

This rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, section 1(b), Principles of Regulation, and with Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review., This rule is limited to agency organization, management, or personnel matters as described by Executive Order 12866, section 3(d)(3) and, therefore, is not a regulation or rule as defined by that Executive Order.

The point to be made here is that it was conceived under the same power that the Obama Administration used to institute the mandate that requires dealers in border-states (Texas, Arizona, California, and New Mexico) to track and report individuals who purchase more than one semi-automatic rifle, with detachable magazine greater than .22 caliber, within a five day period.

Now, with every new change in policy, theres always the question of how will it effect the average citizen?

This is obviously a difficult question to answer. The government would probably argue that its a necessary measure to help crackdown on drug trafficking and that it wont infringe on the rights of the law-abiding.

But then, on the other hand, you have organizations like the Drug Policy Foundation, which is dedicated to the legalization of controlled substances that said in a report circa 2000, one recent study showed that more than 80 percent of person [sic] who had their property seized by the federal government were never even charged with a crime (for more on this, click here).

Also, along those lines, the editors at the Washington Times see it as a confiscatory measure specifically designed to take guns and money from the law-abiding.

Law enforcement agencies love civil forfeiture because its extremely lucrative. The Department of Justices Assets Forfeiture Fund had $2.8 billion in booty in 2011, according to a January audit. Seizing guns from purported criminals is nothing new; Justice destroyed or kept 11,355 guns last year, returning just 396 to innocent owners. The new ATF rule undoubtedly is designed to ramp up the gun-grabbing because, as the rule justification claims, The nexus between drug trafficking and firearm violence is well established. Like with everything, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle between an innocuous measure to help federal agencies fight drug-related violence and crime and a full-blown affront to law-abiding citizens, which in this particular case is not at all comforting.

As its been said in the past:

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. - Benjamin Franklin

So the Feds can shut down a website and seize its domain on the suspicion (not proof!) of intellectual property violations, and they can also take whatever the hell they want on suspicion that what they’re seizing is somehow involved in a drug transaction.

Even the hardcore Leftist government-should-control-and-do-eveything people I know are shocked and seriously alarmed by this.

What’s next..?

12
posted on 09/08/2012 3:11:39 PM PDT
by verum ago
(Be a bastard, and Karma'll be a bitch.)

Of all the government agencies to grant more power to, the BATF is the most out of control, unconstitutional, abusive and most threatening to the average citizen.

At what point does a single elected official - supposedly our representatives - show that they still possess their cojones and stop these unconstitutional actions? I have no illusions that any of them have the cojones.

IF SECESSION NOT BE, THEN REVOLUTION MUST.

18
posted on 09/08/2012 3:23:07 PM PDT
by NTHockey
(Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners)

It used to scare me, but there are diminishing returns. People kinds get how prohibition has changed crime and crimefighting. They know about RICO and know property is guilty until proven innocent. They may or may not br aware of ridiculous SCOTUS decisions according to which you can’t possibly get your stuff back after it rubbed up against drugs even if there’ no dour you’re innocent (guess why? government pikes money, dug).

I’s hard, is all, to keep on being scared due both to inertia and the only alternative painted as heroin vending machines at elementary schools and atom bomb solos in every back yard.

There are lots and lots of federal employees who should receive pink slips this winter from President Romney, particularly in the BATF and the IRS. Definitely the IRS.
And that’s just a good start.
Then on to the Departments of Education, Energy, the EPA, the CPSC, to get the ball really rolling.
Why are we laying off soldiers, airmen and sailors when the department, agency and bureau paper-pushers are as thick as flies & maggots on a dead skunk?
We’ll be taking good notes, GOP-e! Four years worth.

This kind of crap is evidence that federal law enforcement members should not get the special retirement plans they have. They are becoming more and more criminal themselves and are beginning to think their “rights” are superior to American citizens’ rights to life, liberty and property. Under the direction of the Obama appointees such as Eric Holder as well as their willing accomplices in the senior career civil servants they are becoming our oppressors instead of our defenders.

Amendment 4
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS AND EFFECTS, AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES, SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED, AND NO WARRANTS SHALL ISSUE, BUT UPON PROBABLY CAUSE, SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, AND PARTICULARLY DESCRIBING THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED, AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED.

Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising
in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY, WITHOUT THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.

More constitutional safeguards down the crapper.

Does that piece of parchment in the Smithsonian mean anything anymore?

One is forced to wonder if our Harvard-educated president - or ANYONE at the BATFE - has ever even read it.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court sleeps, and congress, fixated on privileges, perks, and pensions, sucks its collective thumb and sends out its franked letters to the effect of, “Hey, everything’s fine; vote for me again!”

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.